OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE38

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:46 Thomas: Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments. This is Thomas Takes the Bar Exam episode 38. That means we're getting the answer to question 37 and a brand new question 38. Before we get to that, any announcements? Well, ah, the Gorsuch special, that is a Law'd Awful Movies, except books, so Law'd Awful Books, is out. Yay! It's way too long since we've done something like that. Read Gorsuch's incredibly bland, but obviously dishonest new book, Overruled. Get it? Two different words. Overrul'd instead of overruled, fantastic. It is as good as that name sounds. And so that's available to second tier patrons and above. Hope you're all enjoying that. If you're on Patreon, if not, maybe consider signing on. Other announcements. Well, I do have some other things in the pipeline, but writing any checks that my editing hands can't cash. So, I'll leave it there for now, but hopefully some exciting releases coming to some of my other podcasts soon that I'm excited I had to tell you about. But our purposes today, let's get on over to Heather and get the answer to question 37 after this break.

0:02:06 Thomas: Heather, it's time for the answer to question 37 about Homer Homeowner, and Bob the Builder. Remind us what's going on here.

0:02:14 Heather: Our friend Homer Homeowner, sorry, and Builder Bob, or Bob the Builder, um, they went in agreement, uh, for Bob to build some beautiful, the four raised beds. What happens is partway through the job, Bob walks off. He's found a better job. He is done. But our friend Homer is unhappy and he sues Bob for specific performance. So we are trying to figure out whether Homer is going to win in his lawsuit against Bob for specific performance. So let's start here. What topic is this testing?

0:02:43 Thomas: Contracts.

0:02:44 Heather: Yes. And how do we know?

0:02:46 Thomas: Homer contracted with Bob. And it's specific performance is the call of the question, which is a contract-y thing, I think.

0:02:53 Heather: That's exactly it. You hit on two really important things. The first sentence tells us right away. It's contracts, like you said, because it's contracted in a really big topic that comes up all the time, both in essays and a multiple choice is remedies. And then remedy that comes up often too is specific performance. Like you said too, it's right in the call, the question is telling us specific performance, I love these types of questions, because I don't have to wonder or try to dig, it just tells you right there. What we'll do is we'll say for right now, specific performance, it's an equitable remedy, which just means that a party is seeking to have the court enforce the defendant to perform or to refrain from acting, and it's available when money damages are inadequate.

0:03:34 Thomas: Yeah, I feel like I identified a lot of that.

0:03:36 Heather: You did, right away, you were talking about, and noticing, well, almost right away, talking about specific performance. And you talked a little bit, and we'll get to this too, and I'll have you talk about it again, about some of the reasons that the court does or doesn't like specific performance. So go through this, let's, um, look at answer choice A. It says yes, that Homer will win because there's been a novation.

And you were saying too, um, that it talks a little bit about, or that you're remembering that novation is a little about contract modification. No, so novation is, I always think of it this way, novation is new party, so we have the same performance but we're just trying to substitute a new party to perform.

So what that might look like in this question, it might be the scenario where Bob goes, peace out, I'm gone, but I'm gonna grab my friend Brad who's going to build the planter boxes instead. So, but we don't have that scenario here. We don't have Bob trying to substitute someone to build those planter boxes, so that's, we do not have a novation here. So you were right to think that A was a wrong answer choice. And so A is incorrect.

Then we're down to to B. Yes, because the contract between the parties was valid and Bob had no legal justification for quitting. So this is a good time to talk about, um, remedies, um, generally begin with compensatory damages. And And this is where you were talking about being compensated financially, right? So do you mind talking a little bit about that, about your memory and refreshing, at least my memory, about what you think about contract damages and what it's trying to do?

0:04:58 Thomas: My memory is like usually the law wants to just solve stuff with money because it's like easier and simpler and, you know, more quantifiable. So it's not like, hey, you didn't do this, just pay him the money, and maybe pay him damages sometimes. Um, I feel like the law is less inclined to order people around when it comes to this.

0:05:16 Heather: Yep. That's exactly it. I was so happy to hear you say that because that's exactly what it is, especially in contracts. And it looks to compensate financially the non -breaching party. And here, that's our friend Homer. He didn't do anything wrong. And looks to put them in the same position they would have been had the breach not occurred. So a lot of times we look to the fact pattern to see whether or not we can determine with certainty an amount that can financially compensate the non -breaching party. Is there an amount of money that we think, um, our friend Homer, that might, I don't want to make him feel better, um, but that, um, if we can determine that might compensate him financially?

0:05:49 Thomas: Like a mobster, is there, uh, is there anything we could do, uh, maybe to make you feel more whole, perhaps, uh, financial remuneration, uh,

0:05:58 Heather: Can't see my fingers, but I'm like holding up my hands.

0:05:58 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Uh, yeah, you would think just like paying him back the 2500. Assume it's weird, it doesn't say that Homer did that, but I think we can assume he did. Um, yeah, just paying back the money probably. Or maybe like, I guess, oh, another thing might be, not that it's important for this, but it might be like, okay, I had to find another person to do it and they're charging me 6,000. Sometimes there's like the difference there. Isn't that sometimes a thing? Yeah.

0:06:00 Heather: Yeah, yes. Yeah, yes.

0:06:22 Heather: That's Exactly it, if this, um, had continued, the fact pattern continued, that's exactly it, our, um, friend Bob would be on the hook for, um, additional amount as well. Yeah.

0:06:31 Thomas: Long as it's like a reasonable kind of estimate thing.

0:06:34 Heather: It wasn't like an additional $10,000. Yeah. But

0:06:35 Thomas: Yeah. Well, I had to hire my brother to do it and he's charging me 4,000 trillion million billions. So you're on the hook, Bob.

0:06:45 Heather: That's exactly, we can look at the fact and it tells us that there's an amount of money that he can be paid. And what a lot of times can happen, especially for Homer here, is he he can take that money back and he can look for another person to build his planter beds. Here we know, and to your point a little bit earlier as well, we know that the court doesn't like to force people to do stuff. So that's a lot of times why they will revert to the money situation. So what does that mean as it relates to this particular answer choice? Well, what we know is that specific performance is available when money damages are inadequate. And also, so there has to be a valid agreement between the parties. Here we see that there is an agreement because when it says here, they contracted. We know that there's no real issue around whether or not they had a valid agreement. They did. So we know that they had that. And then here the other part says there's no legal justification for abruptly quitting.

0:06:50 Thomas: Yeah.

0:07:36 Heather: We think it matters whether or not he that had a reason?

0:07:38 Thomas: I would think so. I think I would think there's, you know, if it turned out that, I don't know, maybe Bob begins to work and he checks his bank. He's like, wait a minute. You didn't pay me the first twenty five hundred. Then I don't know. Maybe that would be a reason. I don't know, something.

0:07:51 Heather: If that was the case, if it was the the case that he didn't pay him up front per their agreement, that might be a little bit different. But here, him not having a justification for quitting, it doesn't really matter as it relates to the specific performance piece. Yeah. Here, a part of the answer choice is correct in the sense that the contract is valid.

0:08:02 Thomas: OK, OK, what if it's like he Homer's house, and then he's like, all right, put in those raised beds. And Homer doesn't have a backyard. There's just no yard there.

0:08:17 Heather: Then we've got a problem. Yeah, there

0:08:19 Thomas: Then he might have a justification for quitting.

0:08:23 Heather: We go. And he's just going to walk away with that, with all that money.

0:08:26 Thomas: And then it would be pretty crazy if he's, like, I'm suing you for specific performance. You're like, you can't. You don't have yard. I can't do it. It's impossible. Can't be done.

0:08:33 Heather: Then our friend Bob has a valid defense. That's another question. That's part of why B is a wrong answer choice is because although part of it's right, part of its wrong. And for these types of questions, it has to be completely correct. So a part right part wrong means completely wrong and wrong for our purposes. A and B are out and we're now down to C and D.

0:08:55 Thomas: What?

0:08:55 Heather: Yeah, I'm sorry.

0:08:56 Thomas: Hold on, I thought I was thinking about something else for a sec, well, how do you eliminate B?

0:09:00 Heather: So part of the answer choice is right, and part of the answer choices wrong. Part of your choice is correct in the sense that the contract between the parties is valid so part of it's factually correct, right? And the other part is incorrect because it says there's, it's giving this, it says, there's no legal justification for abruptly quitting. Doesn't really matter as it relates to the way that we're looking at the question. It doesn't matter when we're talking about specific performance.

0:09:09 Thomas: Yeah, oh, okay, yeah, I think I was too focused on my joke making, shit, so, oh I thought was such a simple answer and simple question and answer I was wrong because if it's specific performance Oh, okay. So it's like, even if he quit, doesn't matter why, legal, good justification or not, he would still need to sub in somebody for him to like fulfill the contract. He could have like taken one swing of the hammer and his arm fell off. And he's like well, that's the end of me. I'm not doing this anymore. And it doesn't really matter if that's a perfectly good reason, like your arm falling off, pretty good reason to not be able to finish the thing. You still needed to like sub someone else in to finish for you.

0:09:46 Heather: Oh, I'm This Particular Instance. Well, In that instance, let's, let's say his arm did fall off, he would have a very valid defense to say I don't have to perform. Listen, there's a valid defense for him to come in and say I do not have to do anything. I That would be awful if his arm fell off and then the law just allowed him, you know what I mean, in the law, law allowed that would be terrible, right? Yes.

0:10:15 Thomas: Oh specific performance would still mean bob okay I'm

0:10:25 Heather: Specific performance Means Bob specifically has to perform, no arms. Bob, would performance basically requires three things from us. Requires that money damages are inadequate. It requires, um, that there's a valid agreement, and it requires that the um, non -breaching party has fully performed. And we can talk about that in a second when we get to answer choice C.

0:10:45 Thomas: The thing I said was right that like, it's better to just pay the money here. All right, shoot.

0:10:48 Heather: Yes. And so that's part of why B is wrong. And then how we get into C. C tells us that no, uh, because by not paying Bob for the second half of the job. Homer has not satisfied all of his conditions under the contract. So I was listening to you talk a little bit about working through this portion and then going back up to their agreement. And Homer did satisfy his conditions under the contract, right? He did pay half of contract price. Then his next, the next thing Homer had to do was pay the remainder, but only when the job is finished, right? And it wouldn't make sense for Homer to pay before the job was finished because it's not part of what the contract says, right? By not paying Bob job, for the second half, it doesn't matter, right, because Homer, he has satisfied all the conditions.

0:11:34 Thomas: Yeah, okay, so at the very least in this failure of a question, I did get that one justification right, I think.

0:11:40 Heather: Absolutely did. You were spot on about why C is actually a wrong answer choice. Choice. So part of the reason that it's incorrect is because our friend Homer, he did satisfy his conditions under the contract, right? By Bob not finishing the job, Homer didn't have to pay the rest of the money, right? Right? And it makes sense. He shouldn't have to. Then that leaves us in our last answer choice, D, no, because the contract is for personal services.

0:12:03 Thomas: Well, I guess that has to be it.

0:12:06 Heather: You're right. And I know that you were thinking back and forth about whether or not this was a contract for personal services.

0:12:10 Thomas: What sucks is I almost changed that to my second chance to keep the dream of second chance law firm alive, but I didn't. Ouch, ouch, this one hurts.

0:12:20 Heather: Include personal services, it's just a guy doing a job and personal services Can be paint in the house, paint in a fence. It is pretty, pretty much anything kind of a person does from there, yeah. It's pretty broad in the contracts realm. Yeah.

0:12:23 Thomas: Really? That's So odd. So why is it that every single home anything you ever do is not this? I'm, that's where I'm not understanding it.

0:12:39 Heather: It's because [law] tends to kind of look at things as like, oh, this is a sale for goods, for things, versus kind of everything else. And so contracts, I think, kind to be, at least in the bar exam and law schools, tends to have more and think, like, in the real world where, like, we live, uh, most of us live, it tends to be a little more complex than that. To your point of, like, well, but a contract, that's different, right? And in this scenario, it's just, it's either I'm selling you something like a good, more

0:13:07 Thomas: Okay, so by the letter of the law here, the, the just the division is just, is it goods or is it services? Oh.

0:13:14 Heather: Um, specifically, is it a good or is it basically anything else? Yeah.

0:13:19 Thomas: Huh. So I think it's because I'm blending that violinist question, I think that's what it is, and that was before your time, so I don't, don't hold you responsible, but I think I, okay, I think I see how, oh man, I, I see the workings of the logic of what did this, but it, I think it's just because I reasoned backwards in a way that's not quite logically. So when the violinist couldn't be replaced because, or rather, when you Tommy violin viola violin violet couldn't just sub in someone else, that's what happened in that question was she tried, tried zuv in someone else, it

0:13:20 Heather: Yep.

0:13:54 Heather: Would have been a novation if she could have subbed in

0:13:55 Thomas: Would have been an ovation But Then what happened was the, I don't know, it was like the venue or something, they sued for specific performance, and now, oh, I should have, I should have remembered more of this, and then the problem was, well, you can't make her do it though, like you Can't you Can't make her co -play the show because it's personal services, and so I had the logic of, well, okay, but when you're, I, I was like, well, every time I've hired anyone to do anything, my house, it doesn't matter who's doing it, like, you just, like, contract with someone, they subcontract, they're then someone, anyone does the work and doesn't mater, and I think I was reasoning backwards to, like, okay, therefore that must not be personal services in the way that we're talking about, because I thought personal services need to be something more distinctive to the person doing it, so it sounds, sounds like that was wrong.

0:13:56 Heather: Yes. Right. That's Correct, it is wrong.

0:14:43 Thomas: Okay. Interesting though, is like, if that's wrong, is it true that I actually could have a say over who does the work on my house? Or is it that the contract's structured in such a way that you'd like sign that away or something?

0:14:43 Heather: Yeah.

0:14:55 Heather: Contracts are related to, um, general contracting and subcontractors, there's rules about that, they're a little bit different because sometimes when you hire a general contractor, if memory serves, sometimes they'll reserve the right to choose who they want to subcontract with, if, if that makes sense, um

0:15:10 Thomas: Interesting. Well this was an abysmal failure. Sad about this.

0:15:14 Heather: I was Was gonna wrap up by saying a specific performance is generally not available as a remedy for an agreement for services, um, to your point, what you're saying a little bit earlier, even if the services are unique, courts, courts generally won't grant that degree to force someone to work because of problems that you mentioned earlier. Courts have a hard time. They don't want to oversee all that stuff. Plus they don't wanna force people to do things they don't want to do. If our friend Bob wants to go and get a much better job up in Humboldt County, harvesting what we know gets harvested up there for much more money, he's welcome to do that.

0:15:30 Thomas: Yeah.

0:15:45 Thomas: It's like, sounds like you're speaking from a personal grievance that you've had. No, I'm just kidding.

0:15:48 Heather: Listen.

0:15:50 Thomas: Yeah. This one hurts because I think I knew all this, and I think it just kind of, yeah, the fact that, like, I just kind of worked backwards incorrectly from the fact that when you hire people to do anything on your house, it doesn't matter, like, it just never does. And what, what I did here, and should I have known that you're not gonna make Bob specifically do that's just not how it works, I had that, I even said it, that The judge Of the law, they don't like to just make someone, in their person, do something, like you have to go physically do this thing, they don't like to do that, I should have known, um, I, yeah, this, I just got tripped up by that backwards logic.

You know, it's, it's difference between actually, you know, learning what the law is and having to constantly just guess because of, by using logic like I do, and, uh, the circuit sometimes doesn't quite work, a little malfunction in the old logic unit here. So the answer was D, I was not, oh man, I it really hurts too because I almost switched my second chance to D, I'm

0:16:10 Heather: Yep. I heard you. I was

0:16:43 Thomas: So Close So that sucks all around, complete failure on my part, uh, and my new score is now 63.64%. I'm 21 for 33. Still doing, still doing okay, still doing better than historically, but that one really got me.

0:16:43 Heather: Like, oh, you're so close.

0:17:02 Thomas: All right, well, we're going to find out who the big winners are. Wasn't me. After, and so I need to pick some winners, and I, I hope that these winners are appropriately shaming me, they should just say shame, shame, shame, shame, because this, I, I should've gotten this right. Let's go to first, reddit.com/r/openargs. People who actually did a better job than I did. Many of you got this, right?

I will say, I, I, I would say almost, maybe not half, but like 40% of people on Reddit said B. So I think I'm very persuasive when convincing people of the incorrect answer. I think my powers of convincing people to go with the wrong answer are very, very strong. Sorry about that. I think, you know, there's some great ones. I'm going to go with It's Underscore Sandwich Undersore Time. So It's Sandwich Time, fantastic Reddit name. And this one is just so perfect, so succinct.

Sandwich Time says, I'm going with D. Homer should win, but courts only order specific performance when money is not adequate compensation. Here, the remedy is Homer gets money so he can hire Kathy the carpenter to finish the job. Ah, great, kept with the alliteration, perfect answer. Thank you so much, at Sandwich Time.

There were a bunch of good ones though, I love this participation, I always read all the answers, so even if I don't shout you out, just know that in my heart, I am reading and enjoying your T3B submissions. And speaking of, now let's go to patreon.com/law to get the winner over there. And the big winner this week, one of my fave patrons, Rana Haddari, absolutely nailed it top to bottom. Says, there's nothing special about your flower beds, Homer. The correct answer is D. Specific performance is clearly not the appropriate remedy for this situation, so you can immediately knock out A and B. The attractive distraction answer is C, language is misleading because, as Thomas caught, the payment of the second half was due at the completion of the contract. This obviously is not happening yet.

And so even if specific performance was appropriate, it would be actually bonkers if the law required Homer to go outside the obligations of the contract and send Bob the rest of the payment, after Bob quit and before work was even done, in order resolution. Specific performance is typically not granted in cases involving personal service contracts, such as construction work, because that would require the courts to supervise the performance of the contract, which would be impractical.

Courts would much rather award monetary damages rather than ordering someone to perform specific services. The personal nature of the contract essentially precludes the remedy of specific performance, and therefore answer D is, is correct. Rana, you nailed it, feel. I like you could have added, and also, shame, shame, shame. Think people should really have called me out for remembering the violinist question and yet not getting the answer. So, you know, it's very kind of you all to not be so harsh on me. So thank you.

Congrats to It's Sandwich Time and Rana Haddari, you are the big winners, and thanks so much for playing. Looking forward to next time. All right, speaking of next time, hopefully I can recover some dignity as we'll be back with Heather after this break to get question number 38, and

0:20:16 Thomas: For Rocket Money, because I can honestly say I was a customer before they were a sponsor, because they are absolutely perfect for me. Actually, I think someone invented Rocket Money specifically for me, Thomas Smith, Rocket Money user, because Rocket Money is a personal finance app that helps find and cancel your unwanted subscriptions, monitors your spending, and helps lower your bills so you can grow your savings. This is absolutely true. There are certain services not allowed to mention my name.

There are certain services that I'm paying for, not once, not twice, not even three times, four times, in different packages, of things were bought and things were sold and things were merged and, and also maybe I accidentally signed up twice for one of them. Yeah, yeah, no, not blameless in this. I admit it. Rocket Money helped me get rid of that. Say they're perfect for me because I love signing up for things and I have an inability to remember anything.

So it's literally couldn't be better. Most Americans think they spend about $62 per month on subscriptions, but the real number is closer to $300. That's a big difference. If just a couple of subscriptions fall off your radar, those recurring payments you didn't even know about really add up. Here's the best part. Rocket Money helps you find these duplicate or unneeded subscriptions, and they can actually help you cancel them. You know how they always make it super hard to cancel anything?

You have to like write a letter to someone and make that person call someone else and then they have to go to someone's house? Rocket Money can help you, might be able to cancel it with a few taps. Rocket Money has over 5 million users and has saved a total of $500 million in canceled subscriptions, saving members up to $740 a year when using all the app's features. So stop wasting money on things you don't use. Cancel your unwanted subscriptions by going to rocketmoney.com/opening. That's rocketmoney.com/opening, rocketmoney.com/opening.

0:22:05 Thomas: Today's show is brought to you by Factor. Factor is also something I used before they were a sponsor, I'll tell you why. We are super busy, Lydia and I, my son Arlo says, super duper looper. I don't know how he added that, but super duper looper busy, I'll say. It's really cute. As such, I love help with anything, but mainly also relevant to this current moment with food. Factor produces fresh, never frozen meals that are dietitian approved and ready to eat in just two minutes.

So no matter how busy you are, you'll always have time to enjoy nutritious, great -tasting meals. Really is easy. And here's the thing. They are never frozen meals. Yes, you microwave them, but they were not frozen. This is real food. Specifically tell you to plate it because you should, because it's an actual meal. With 35 different meals and more than 60 add-ons to choose from, every week you'll have new flavors to explore. And of course, they've got CalorieSmart, Protein Plus, Keto, so many options.

From breakfast to dessert. You can stay fueled all day with Factor if you need to. It's well -balanced, nutritious, and really does taste good. Head to factormeals.com/opening50 and use code OPENING50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month. That's code OPENING50 at factormeals.com/opening50 to get 50% off your first box plus 20% off your next month while your subscription is active.

I know that was a mouthful, but what you got to remember is factormeals.com/opening50 and then use that code OPENING50. That's what you gotta remember to get that great deal.

0:23:43 Thomas: Right, Heather, it is time for another question. Uh, don't feel great about that last one, but I think there's always time to turn around. Uh, so question 38, here we go. Fantasy

0:23:54 Heather: Is a resident of the Western District of the State of Asgard. Sued Debbie Defendant, a resident in the Eastern District of Mordor, for personal injuries she suffered when Debbie drunkenly hit her over the head at a pool party in the State of Isengard, which only has one judicial district. In which judicial district is venue proper? A. The Western District of the state of Asgard only. B. The Eastern District of Mordor only. C. The state of Isengard only. Or D. Either the Eastern District of the state of Mordor or the state of Isengard.

0:24:28 Thomas: Foul, it's all crossed, we got two Lord of the Rings things and one, uh, isn't it like Thor or something thing, we got to, this is, we're mixing our fantasy. So first off, that's my answer, the secret answer E, this would never happen just because of that reason.

Uh, so we got their typical, uh, state three state solution here, we gotta figure out where this, these always kill me, I feel like I should always know this, we, we gotta have that, like, diversity jurisdiction, maybe it's that kind of thing, or, or I don't know, I'm not sure.

Um, plaintiff again, these names have got to be weird in the play, like Patty and Asgard, hi, I'm Patty of Asgard and Debbie of Mordor, I suppose Mordor has to have like people who answer phones and stuff, so I suppose it's not, that's not all just like evil looking orcs, like you also have to have a certain amount out of, uh, office workers and stuff to make any good, you, empire work, I think.

So Patty is suing Debbie, he's in the Western District, now the district thing is kind of weird because normally this is like, if a plane crashes on the thing, where do you bury the survivors, it's normally about like the states, I feel like, and it's like who has residency in what state. And that's what we've kind of done in the past. Don't remember like a more district -based question now that I think about it. I'm not actually sure. Maybe that doesn't matter. I don't know. Also doesn't say, federal. I don't know if they're into federalism in like Mordor or whatever, but it doesn't say if we're dealing with

0:26:02 Thomas: The federal, like Morgoth court, or just the state of Mordor court. They were both in a different state, in Isengard. That's crazy. It must have been a peace conference or something, which has only one judicial district. So the thing happened, drunkenly hit someone in the head, happened in Isengard. Was it Gondor? That's what I want to know. Uh, hit over the head at a pool party? It's usually, all right. The person is, the master of their complaint or whatever.

Usually get to sue kind of where they want, but obviously subject to some rules. Feel like there's a strong case for where it happened. That can work. Or there's a strong case for where you're a resident, I think actually, can you do either, all three?

Hmm, well crap, um, just right off the bat, I, where it happened or the state were the person, where the victim lived, seem pretty solid to me, but I also think the state where the, like, lives is also, because I'm, it could be all three, I think the district's thing is a distraction, I don't think that matters, because especially when you look at the answer A, the Western District of the state of Asgard only, so that would be Patty plaintiff state, basically B, Debbie defendant state, pretty C, the state where the pool party happened.

And then D, oh, D's a weird one. Okay, so all three isn't even an answer. I thought, I blanked out. I just assumed D was. D is either Mordor, so Debbie defendant's land of residence, or the state where the thing happened. That would be weird. So, that would be, well, would that be weird? Maybe not. I feel like it's, it's like, oh, there's that thing where, yeah, like, have you availed yourself of the laws of the whatever?

I think there's something about that, that's the key here. Debbie's never been to Asgard, at least by the question, especially because it's, again, it's not in this fantasy world, it's very bizarre, should have been the Shire or something. Debbie's ever been there, I think that's key, key. It's like, okay, if I'm in California, someone else is in Texas or something, they hit me with a car in, God, could I name a third state, I guess, gun to my head, Iowa.

0:28:14 Thomas: And I sue? I actually don't think I can sue them in California. I think maybe that's what it is. Because they haven't done, they haven't like, I think the term is they haven't availed themselves of the something, the laws in California or whatever. There's no reason they would be subject to those laws, possibly, like they maybe have never been there, the thing didn't happen there, so I think the state where it happened, I think is that's the most solid one.

So that eliminates A and B, because A and B is the either this, you know, Californian or Texas kind of thing. Um, Texans, I think it's a good comparison for Mordor, I had to stand by that. Um, I, I think I'm going to use that to eliminate A and B. Am I sure, I mean, there's a, there'sa possibility I can only sue them in their state. That seems crazy, though. Like, I've also never been, what a tricky one.

Okay, I, I, I'm gonna go with this, with this reasoning. I think I think the Isengard, I think the place where it happened is key, because, because, I mean, you've got to be able to, because that's like, if you're driving in Isengard, you got to follow the rules of Isengard, a lot of ent-based traffic rules there that you have to follow, since they took that over. I'm going to use that to eliminate A and B. I think I got to go with that, because that is the only thing that makes sense. So, is it only the place where the car accident was? Uh, in this question, it's the, uh, the hit over the head at the pool party. Oh, well, you know, no wonder, I mean, Isengard, the whole thing was a pool after the, this third movie, second movie, I can't remember, so no wonder there's a pool party.

There's not a lot of people, there's a lot as much celebration in, I think you've got to be able to do that. It, so it is it just that, or is it the place where Debbie Defendant lives, or Isengard, so it's like, do I have that option?

If I'm suing, and I think, man, I'm glad all three is not an option, because I actually would have thought that, no, I think, okay, I'm between C or D, and I think I'm gonna go D, I think it's either where they live or where the thing happened, because, like, those are two places. Well, do I like that? I think I'm going to go with D. It's, I also, like, having to travel back and forth from Mordor to Isengard, I mean, that's a pain, have you ever done that commute? It's rough, unless you got one of those flying ringwraiths, it takes a minute. So I feel like either where it happened or where the defendant is makes sense to me. They've never been to Asgard that we know of, or they possibly could have never been to Asgard, so it seems hard to like hold them accountable to those laws.

Yeah, I'm going to go between C and D, final answer D. All right, and if you'd like to play along, if you are not a patron, go to reddit.com/r/openargs, it's a really cool place to play, tracks, tracks your scores, you can do the no spoilers tags, I think you have to do them actually, and that's super cool.

If you're a patron, go to patreon.com, look for the episode that this was in, look for for the T3BE posting, and that's the best place because you have better chances of being selected as a winner. But as a patron, you can also do both. So have fun, let's see what kind of fantasy answers we come up with here, and we'll find out about Mordor Court next.

0:31:12 Heather: We will.

0:31:13 Thomas: Thanks, Heather. That was a lot of fun.

0:31:13 Heather: Thank you. Great,

0:31:20 Clip: Thank you for being, say we started from the bottom, now we're here, girl.

0:31:30 Thomas: Now it's time to do our usual patron shout outs of the amazing people that make this show happen at patreon.com/law, you folks are the best, and it is with a heavy heart that I announce I'm just about going to catch up with these next 30 names. And then I'm going to make up for it by doing the full shout out of Hall of Famers every week. Because honestly, that was already a good idea.

And now, the regular trickle of patrons is not going to take up nearly as much time. I think doing the Hall of Fame shoutouts each week will be super fun. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We are going through the end of June and catching up into almost present day with these names. Thank you so much to Mike, Andrew Hansen. Whichever party replaces their candidate will win. Thomas, you're a good bean, and I appreciate everything you do. Wow, I think you might be right there.

The replaced their candidate, I believe is going to win, but we still need to make that happen. Unionize_Your_Workplace. Absolutely. Frank Toro, KC Gleason, Niko, Gail Smith, Michael Anderson, Walksuphills, Heather, Bob, Caleb Moline, Chicken Fried Steak Visions,

0:33:03 Thomas: Thank you so much, new patrons, amazing. I love you so much. Seriously, you're making the show happen. Now it's time to thank the Hall of Famers, the all-time greats, and we are on the final... Oh, I have no singing voice. I can't do it. The fi... I got an octave down. The final quartile. There you go, bass. Final quintile. We begin with a big thank you to Elect Thomas Smith President, American Honkytonk Bar Association. Guy Chapman, the Solutions Archaeologist. Kitei, Philip Kizer, J.D. Vance doesn't have more kids because it was a pull-out couch.

0:33:47 Thomas: The 501st and Rebel Legion want you, cosplayers, doing good. Milo Meadsong is on to the post now that his cert petition was denied. A string of unpronounceable characters.

0:34:09 Thomas: Thank you so much, top patrons, the final quartile, the best quartile, with major apologies to the other quartiles. But starting next week, going to get shoutouts from the full Hall of Famers each week. Because we have the time. Looking forward to it. All right. That's our show. Once again, check out that Law'd Awful Books on patreon.com/law. If you haven't, if you're a patron, make sure you go check, your new podcasts. Make sure you downloaded it. A lot of fun and looking forward to another rapid response Friday. We'll see you then.

0:34:37 Clip: This podcast is a production of Opening Arguments Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved. It is produced and edited by Thomas Smith, who also provided the fabulous intro and outro music used with permission.